5 Comments
User's avatar
Pekah Wallace's avatar

Complex analysis! It assumes politicians and SCOTUS engage rational thought. I don't get the feeling they do.

It still boggles my mind that SCOTUS would become yet another left wing extremist group of people who stsnd ready to hijack our political system not as neutrals but as party loyalists. My preference is for a neutral SCOTUS given a two party system diametrically opposed on tbe basic rights important to country and citizens.

Expand full comment
John Quiggin's avatar

This is fascinating. But at least in contemporary politics, there's hardly anyone who cares more about federalism than about outcomes. As soon as the Repubs get control nationally, they will stop caring about states' rights and become advocates of a unitary national state. The obvious starting point will be national legislation prohibiting abortion

Expand full comment
Christopher Mackin's avatar

This is the bees knees.

Expand full comment
James Livingston's avatar

Well jeez, Chris, thanks, if you please. Haven't heard that expression since I asked my father to explain it. If I remember right, he had used it to describe the fit of some joint he had fashioned on the spot--we were laying tile and installing an acoustic ceiling in the basement, turning a cellar into a pool hall. Eh?

Expand full comment
Christopher Mackin's avatar

Me and your Pops. We are on the same wavelength. Enjoyed your piece on the Healey book. Gopnik has a touch. The note on toast and insurgents as more than the "elves of economic necessity." Writing like that causes perspiration among self-satisfied Marxist bro's. You? Not self-satisfied.

Expand full comment